Jesus in Context: Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites? Well…Maybe

In our Gospel readings for the 27th through the 31st Sundays in Ordinary Time (Mt 21:33-43; 22:1-14; 22:15-21; 22:34-40; 23:1-12), we are treated to some rather tough controversies between Jesus and several groups – elders, scribes, Herodians, and Pharisees.  To a certain extent in our Gospel narratives, each of these groups collectively represent a form of Judaism that began to emerge after the Temple was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 – namely Rabbinic Judaism.* As we progress through each of the five Sundays in October, the tension between Jesus and these opponents intensifies, culminating in the devastating invective of the 23rd chapter of Matthew directed toward the scribes and Pharisees.  The only way however, to make reasonable sense of this visceral polemic (esp. Matthew 23:13-33, a text that is not covered by the Lectionary) is to understand it as reflecting the perspective of Matthew’s Community* – an outsider’s perspective on the early Rabbinic movement which, like the early Christian movement and so Matthew’s community, was drawing out its plan for reconstructing Judaism in light of the loss of Temple and land sometime around AD 90.  As one might expect, the stakes were perceived by both groups to be very high, and this comes through in the Gospel narratives in the form of disputatious discourse related from the perspective of believers in Jesus Christ.

As this socio-religious drama has worked itself out over the centuries, the Pharisees get worked over by the short end of history’s stick.  Imagine that you are today reading Matthew’s Gospel for the first time, when you come across the Pharisees in the story.  Wondering who or what they were, you go for Webster’s New World Dictionary and stumble across the adjective “Pharisaic” and read: “1. of the Pharisees 2. emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of the religious law; self-righteous; sanctimonious 3. pretending to be highly moral or virtuous without actually being so; hypocritical”.  Not a positive appraisal by any means.  But where do we get our information about the Pharisees?

The common, generally negative appraisal of the Pharisees – who most scholars believe to be the progenitors of the Rabbinic movement – comes principally from the four Gospels, which often use them as a negative example against which to compare Jesus.  For example, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is THE authoritative interpreter of Torah, not the Pharisees (cf. Mt 5:17-40!). 

“For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi'” (Mt 23:3b-7).

From this we learn much that apparently corroborates with our dictionary definition of Pharisaic – hypocritical, pretentious, self-righteous, seeking the praise of people.  But asking the Gospels to offer a fair portrait of the Pharisees is like asking a Middle School student to describe the character of the bullies that have been beating him up regularly for the last month.  A fair and accurate description is not likely to come.

From Josephus* we learn that the Pharisees were actually admired by many.  But does this necessarily mean that they sought such admiration?  Undoubtedly some did, but that is a far cry from the notion that Pharisees on principle, sought admiration.  According to Josephus, the Pharisees were admired because of their high ideals “both in their way of living and in their discourse” (Josephus Antiq. 18.15).  To be sure, according to the Leviticus Rabbah* “He who learns with the intention of practicing will be privileged to receive the Holy Spirit,” while for him that does not, it is better that he die in childbirth (XXXV.7).  On balance then, most Pharisees likely practiced what they preached!  Surely that is worthy of admiration and emulation by all!!

From the Mishnah* we learn that humility was high on order for Pharisees.  Hillel* related that “a name made great is a name destroyed” (Mishnah Avot 1.13), and that loving and pursuing peace, loving humankind and bringing them near to the Torah is of great import (Mishnah Avot 1.10).  Shammai* is remembered for the maxim “Say little and do much” (Mishnah Avot 1.15).  Good motive and intention was on order as well for Pharisees who believed directing one’s heart/mind toward heaven (rather than elsewhere) was vital (Mishnah Menahot 13.11; cf. Bavli Berakhot* 17a). 

Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Pharisees were likely not the habitual seekers of the praise of people, let alone the lazy, self-righteous hypocrites that we’ve come to know them as.  Indeed, what faith tradition has not had its share of hypocrites from time-to-time?

We are all faced with a unique challenge by this difficult series of Gospel readings – which neither offer, nor are interested in offering an accurate image of the historical Pharisees, let alone any of Jesus’ “opponents.”  We are challenged to imagine and practice ways of understanding these harsh words of Jesus in their historical context, and so to appropriate them responsibly as Catholics in a context of respectful discourse with our “elder brothers in the faith” (Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope).  Moreover, and “closer to home,” we may receive these texts as a warning about the dangers all those who are serious about their religion are apt to fall into – being self-righteous and complacent about ourselves while too easily condemning others.

*Key Terms (cumulative from previous installments):
Babylonian Talmud:  Further commentary and development of the contents of the Mishnah compiled by Rabbis in Babylonia from the 3rd to the 5th centuries AD.  Referred to as “Bavli” (cf. above, “Bavli Berakhot 17a”).

Casuistry:  Unfortunately, most Christians today understand the practice of casuistry to be by definition dishonest, hypocritical, and with an eye toward trivialities rather than matters of greater importance.  Indeed, Jesus accuses Pharisees of this very sort of casuistry (Mt. 23:23).  However, the practice of casuistry could have been either benign or malignant, as is the case in many similar situations in life.  That said, examples of benign casuistry are plentiful in the Mishnah (for example, Nedarim, 4.2; 9.8).

Halachah:  Refers to the “path one walks” in following God’s law.  Specifically, it is the entirety of the customs, commandments, and divine ordinances (the 613 Mitzvoth!) that a Jew is obliged to follow within the context of the covenant.

Hillel: The first of the Pharisaic patriarchs appointed by Herod to preside over the Sanhedrin in 30 BC.  Hillel is one of the most well known Pharisaic sages of the 1st Century, and famous for his liberal inclination toward interpreting Torah.

Josephus (b. AD 38): Jewish historian whose works represent one of our most important primary sources for information about 1st Century Judaism.

Leviticus Rabbah: Seventh Century midrash (interpretation) on Leviticus.

Matthew’s Community: A phrase used by biblical scholars to refer the particular community of believers in Jesus Messiah to/for whom Matthew composed his Gospel.  Likewise, Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s “community.”

Mishnah: The compilation of the Oral Torah, or oral tradition(s), completed around AD 200.  Most biblical scholars recognize that many of the traditions found in the Mishnah may go as far back as the 2nd Century BC.  “Berakoth,” “blessings” or “benedictions” in Hebrew, is the title of the first section of the Mishnah.

Rabbinic Judaism: Judaism as it emerged from the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.  Most likely grounded in the Pharisaic tradition(s) and reaching a pinnacle around AD 200 with the compilation of the Mishnah.

Shammai (d. AD 30): Another well known Pharisaic patriarch and contemporary of Hillel and Jesus.  Shammai is famous for a more conservative and rigid interpretation of Torah.

Shema: The Shema is the prayer (Deut. 6:4-9) that best encapsulates the theology and the piety of ancient Judaism.  “Hear (Shema!) Oh Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is One” (Deut. 6:4).

Tefillah: “Prayer” in Hebrew.   Tefillah refers to the obligatory benedictions/blessings usually prayed daily along with the Shema.

Bibliography:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Urbi et orbi Communications, 1994.

The Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press, 1990.

The Midrash Rabbah, IV, Soncino Press, 1983.

Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Knopf, 1995.

Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation, Yale University Press, 1988.

E P Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, SCM Press, 1990. 

E P Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 63 BCE-66CE, SCM Press, 1994.

Yaacov David Herzog, The Mishnah: Berakoth – Peah – Demai, Soncino Press, 1980.